Monday, May 31, 2010

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

The short form is that more people are getting more of their income by the use of government force to take it from others.

Not a good situation. Supposedly, Margaret Thatcher said "They (socialists) alwasy run out of other people's money."

That is certainly true. If most of the sources of income involve taking from others pretty soon there isn't enough to go around. I thought that was obvious, but there are always people who don't get the word. Usually those people are elected to congress or they sit in the White House.

From the article:

Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and thefederal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

I suggest that you go back and read that again. If it doesn't scare you then you probably should check yourself into the Betty Ford Clinic.

Here is a simple explanation from the article:

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.

That is the truth, but what are we doing in this nation? We are accelerating on the path to destruction. Remember a place called Greece?

Some numbers from the article:

• Private wages. A record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal income came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007.

•Government benefits. Individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started.

I'm too lazy to look it up now but I wonder what is the source of the other ~40% of personal income. So-called "un-earned income" from interest and speculation? I say so-called un-earned because I don't think interest is really un-earned, at least not like welfare is un-earned.

One more bit:

Economist Veronique de Rugy of the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University says the riots in Greece over cutting benefits to close a huge budget deficit are a warning about unsustainable income programs.

There is that place again - Greece.

The economic pain these days is a symptom of the problem of spending money you don't have, from individuals up to the federal government. Like most medical problems, if you try to avoid pain by putting off going to the doctor for treatment then most likely you will suffer much more in the end.

The government may be able to put off some of the pain by taking from some people and giving it to others but in the end we will face more pain. Far better for the federal government to make deep spending cuts now and start paying back some of this debt then to keep piling on more debt in hopes that it will somehow go away or be forgiven.

Monday, May 24, 2010

This article strikes me as a case of the obvious. Another situation where reality insists.

From the article:

"The current welfare state is unaffordable," said Uri Dadush, director of the Carnegie Endowment's International Economics Program. "The crisis has made the day of reckoning closer by several years in virtually all the industrial countries."

The welfare state is unaffordable? NO!!!! Hey Inspector Detector I've got another hot tip for you: Water flows downhill.

More:

Germany will decide next month just how to cut at least 3 billion euros ($3.75 billion) from the budget.

They seem to be smarter than we are at this time. Our federal government is trying to invent new ways to spend more money.

Here is a shocker:

"We have to adjust our social security systems in a way that they motivate people to accept regular work and do not give counterproductive incentives," German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told news weekly Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung on Saturday.

They are planning on not giving counterproductive incentives? They can't do that. The people are entitled to other peoples money!!!

Another good bit:

Large-scale immigration from outside Europe is challenging the continent's assumptions about its dedication to tolerance and liberty as countries move to control individual clothing - the Islamic veil - in the name of freedom and equality.

Does that sound familiar? On the whole I have to say that I prefer our illegal immigrants to theirs, although I'm not sure that the Muslim immigrants are illegal in Europe.

The Europeans are facing this reality: When times are good you can afford some welfare and social programs for a while. When times go bad you can't afford them any more. Another problem is that people begin to think they are entitled to them.

Poor loan performance in other sectors also continued to hurt banks, with the total number of loans at least three months past due climbing for the 16th consecutive quarter, FDIC officials said in a briefing on Thursday.

That doesn't sound like much of a recovery.

"The banking system still has many problems to work through, and we cannot ignore the possibility of more financial market volatility," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said.

I think I'll nominate that for "The Understatement of the Year" award.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

This guy doesn't like all the belt fed machine guns, RPGs, and Chinese made full auto rifles that Americans buy at Walmart and then smuggle across the border into Mexico to be used against the police that won't stay bribed. Boo Hoo.

I've got a suggestion for you Calderon:

Close the Border!!!

The obvious problem with that is that then Mexico couldn't offload it's underclass. The nation would also lose some of it's biggest sources of income: drugs sold to gringos and money sent home by illegals.

This head liar from south of the border is so full of it I'm surprised the EPA doesn't ban him from entering the United States. He claims 80% of the firearms confiscated from drug cartels come from the USA. Anyone with a brain can spend 5 minutes on bing and prove to themselves that isn't true. Truth is really not the strong suit of Mexico's government or of this administration.

Stocks are likely to continue their aggressive decline and shed another 20 percent in value as the world economy weakens, economist Nouriel Roubini told CNBC.

I think this guy is an optimist. I think the stock market has been floating on laughing gas, because I don't see anything else holding it up.

From the article:

As the market slides into correction territory, Roubini said weakness in euro zone countries and a slowdown in the US and other developed countries will make things even more difficult for investors in the months ahead.

"There are some parts of the global economy that are now at the risk of a double-dip recession," said Roubini, head of Roubini Global Economics. "From here on I see things getting worse."

I think "Correction Territory" would be a good name for a rock band, or maybe a sci-fi book. Also, there is that ugly term "double-dip recession" again.

One last bit from Mr. Roubini:

"What needs to be done is clear. We need to raise taxes and cut spending. Otherwise we're going to get a fiscal train wreck," he said. "It's going to take years of sacrifices."

He is half right. Our government must cut spending, but raising taxes is kind of like putting a tourniquet around your neck to stop the bleeding from a scalp wound.

A bar owner could be in serious trouble with the federal government. A bartender was videotaped burning a statue of President Obama.

I guess the previous incidents happened back where there was freedom of speech.

People in West Allis were shouting and laughing as the bartender torched the statue for the crowd.

I'll bet they were cheering.

West Allis police say the Secret Service is also investigating. The Secret Service investigates any possible threats against the president.

I guess a picture of the President with a knife stuck in his forehead isn't a threat. I guess a statue of the President being burned isn't a threat. However, a statue of the President being burned is obviously a threat.

I think there is something wrong with the previous paragraph. Any suggestions as to what it is?

I LOL'd at this:

NAACP leaders maintain they're going to push for a full investigation.

I don't think I even need to add anything to that last statement. The silliness speaks for itself.

The chance that the majority Democrats will pass a budget this year is “fading,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Tuesday.

I wasn't sure what to think when I first read that. The next sentence did not make me feel better:

He is pessimistic because House Democrats don’t know whether they want to pass a resolution that would officially acknowledge the certainty of big deficits.

What does that mean? Do these people think if they just don't admit that they are spending much more than is coming in that nobody will notice? I'll bet that foreign investors will notice at some point.

It gets much better:

Eschewing a budget resolution could complicate efforts to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and couples making less than $250,000 annually.

I can see the little wheels turning in these lefties little heads: "How can we raise taxes and at the same time say we didn't raise taxes? I've got it!! We can just not pass a budget resolution to extend tax cuts and then blame it on republicans."

Here is one I like:

One option Conrad said his staff is now looking at is a deeming resolution.

Like an actual budget measure, the deeming resolution would set the discretionary spending levels for the next fiscal year. But unlike a budget resolution, the deeming resolution would allow Democrats to avoid laying out their fiscal policies for 2011 and beyond.

I would think that democrats would like to hide their fiscal policies.

Here is a funny one:

Centrist House Democrats have been wary of voting for a budget resolution because it’s likely to project large deficits.

If they are really worried about deficits then I've got a plan for them:

DON'T SPEND SO MUCH!!!

I guess that never occurred to them.

I LOL when I read this:

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Obama’s policies would lead to deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.

Nicely worded. It seems to say the deficit will be less than $1 trillion total for the next 10 years. Isn't that an average of $1 trillion per year for the next decade? That is also using the numbers sent to the CBO which uses them regardless of how outlandish they are. I wonder how bad it will really be?

The federal government is still in denial. We are bankrupt. The printing presses have been running 24/7 and the plan is to keep them going. Hold on tight. The Captain has put on the "Fasten Your Seatbelt" sign.

Joshua Rauh, associate professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University said that, without reform, some state pensions might run out within the decade. By 2030, as many as 31 states may not have the money to pay pensions. And, if these funds exhaust their assets, the size of payments for the benefits they have promised will be too large to cover through taxes, putting pressure on the federal government for a bail-out that could potentially cost more than $1,000bn, he says.

“It is more than a local problem,” Mr Rauh said. “The federal government could be on the hook.”

I understand that the retirees will get the shaft. I don't see how that is the federal government's issue, unless some branch of the federal government is going to prosecute the governor, state legislators, and all the state employees who supported this and helped the process along.

Even if the federal government does that I fail to see how the people of one state are liable for the pension plan in another state, which is what Mr. Rauh means when he says "the federal government could be on the hook". If I promise to give you $1 million and it turns out I don't have the cash to fulfill that promise I don't think you can go to my neighbor and force him to pay up.

I don't know about you but I don't want to pay for some clerk in the IL tax collectors office to live 30 years in retirement while I have to keep working.

In a way I'm kind of laughing a little inside because for years I've heard how wonderful and secure state jobs are and I've heard people with those jobs brag about how they didn't have to worry about being laid off or retiring or anything else. I know that is mean but I can't help laughing just a little.

More from the article:

Many states base their calculations on an 8 per cent annual return and use an accounting method called smoothing, which staggers gains and losses over several years, two factors that some observers warn could mask the size of the shortfalls.

If that is the case then maybe a state agency (or the federal government) should find out who decided to use that silly method, prosecute them for fraud, and put them in jail. If they were appointed then the idiot that appointed them should also be prosecuted.

More:

States have begun reforms, with some lowering return expectations and raising employee contributions and retirement ages.

Mr Rauh said such measures were cosmetic and states needed comprehensive, federally sponsored reform that would require closing the systems to new members, shifting state workers to Social Security and individual plans similar to those that are used by the private sector in order to obtain incentives to borrow to bridge the gaps.

As far as I'm concerned if social security is going to exist then EVERYONE should be forced the throw away their money on it - including state employees, congressmen, and the President. This is coming from someone who thinks social security is the biggest ripoff ever forced on the population of this nation.

There is one part of that I don't understand: "to obtain incentives to borrow to bridge the gaps". What is the guy talking about? Is he saying states should borrow more money?

I don't think state employment should be a meal ticket for life and I think it is wasteful to allow government employee unions. If the state made a contract then they should fulfill it at the expense of the citizens of that state. The federal government should not pick up a penny of that cost. If the state goes bankrupt and collapses then the people who put all their eggs in that basket and didn't make alternative retirement plans are out of luck the same as if they worked for a private company that went bankrupt.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

An Arizona utility commissioner said he's willing to pull the plug on Los Angeles if the city goes through with a boycott of his state.

I would love to see that.

Here is part of the letter from the Commissioner to the Mayor of LA:

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands.

The wanna-be elites in LA see AZ as a place they can put those dirty power plants so they don't have the pollution, but they think the peons in AZ should just shut up and do as their told.

I wonder if a 25% reduction in electric power capacity would cause rolling blackouts in LA?

Here is a quote in the article from the former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, a top outside adviser (what does that mean exactly?) to President Barack Hussein Obama:

“In the United States, we don’t seem to me to share the same sense of urgency” as countries such as Ireland, Volcker said in his speech. “The time we have is growing short” and “there are serious questions, most immediately about the sustainability of our commitment to growing entitlement programs.”

Did he mean what I think he did? That we may not be able to afford welfare, social security, and government employee retirements!? Cities will burn over that one.

Any kind of government redistribution scheme is always a one way street. Once it is started there is almost no way to stop it or end it. I thought this would be obvious to anyone by now, but I guess not because we just decided to hand over health care to the government. Good luck repealing that mess egardless of the election results.

Back to the article:

The Obama administration is forecasting a record annual budget deficit of $1.6 trillion. The shortfall is projected to be $10 trillion over the next 10 years, with interest payments on the debt forecast to quadruple to more than $900 billion annually.

You can count of government estimates and predictions about deficits and debts to be very optimistic. I wouldn't be surprised if the 10 year shortfall isn't twice what they are currently predicting.

I think he decided to underplay things a little with this one:

Sovereign debt is becoming an issue “most pointedly in the euro zone” and is “potentially of concern among some of our own states,” Volcker said.

Are you kidding? Does he think nobody is paying attention? Has this guy ever heard of California? Even in Texas, where the economy is doing better than most of the country, the deficit is expected to be more than $10 billion.

$10 billion is "potentially of concern"!?

I liked this part:

Europe’s woes are unlikely to derail the U.S. economy, which is undergoing a “subnormal” recovery, Volcker said in response to audience questions.

That is kind of like saying that Ted Kennedy is undergoing a subnormal recovery from 50 years as a pickled can of Crisco.

Now we get to the heart of the big government view of the nation:

The U.S. has reached its limit on corporate and income taxes, and there isn’t an “easy way” to raise more revenue under the current system, he said, calling a carbon tax “an interesting thing to do.”

If in debt, raise taxes. I wish I could do that in my life. Imagine going out and buying a bunch of new stuff and then being able to go to work and demand more money - and actually getting it.

If I LOL'd at the last bit, I felt like a frozen brick had been dropped into my stomach at this part:

“Any thoughts that participants in the financial community might have had that conditions were returning to normal should by now be shattered,” he said. “We are left with some very large questions: questions of understanding what happened, questions of what to do about it, and ultimately questions of political possibilities.”

It's all about power. Do you remember hearing something like this before from this administration?

First up, AZ has passed a new law stating that firms have no legal duty to provide translators. Alright. I like that. It's a shame that they had to pass a law to confirm something that was already the law. According to this article a non-English speaking person filed a discrimination suit against an optometrist because he wouldn't allow the woman's 12yo daughter to serve as an interpreter, he wouldn't provide an interpreter, and he suggested she go to another optometrist who spoke Spanish. Wow. The arrogance of that person, who apparently lives in the United States of America, refuses to learn English, and wants to force everyone else to pander to her. I wonder if she was in the country legally?

Good for Arizona. I am jealous because I know this state would never stand up to that kind of nonsense.

Second, do you remember all the people in CA that announced they would boycott AZ over the illegal immigration law? It seems that the zapato is on the other pie so to speak, as AZ residents have started calling hotels in CA and canceling reservations because they have decided to boycott CA. The funny part is that the Californios don't seem to like it. They want to push their ideas on others, but when those others push back they get upset.

From the article:

Several councils in large cities like Los Angeles, Austin, Boston and San Francisco have approved boycotts on employee travel or future contracts with Arizona businesses as a result of the law that goes into effect on July 1. The state tourism bureau has said the losses so far have reached nearly $10 million as a result of 23 canceled meetings.

Now for the other side of that coin, here is some of the whining from CA:

That has tourism officials urging Arizonans to consider the resolutions as merely symbolic and local politics at work.

"We're in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don't need another negative impact to our industry," ConVis President Joe Terzi told the Union-Tribune. "This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don't do something that hurts their livelihoods."

So places like LA and SF can boycott AZ to the tune of $10 million and that is ok, but if please, please, please don't hurt OUR livelihoods.

Crybabies. They like to dish it out but they can't take it. This reminds me of a Family Circus I saw years ago:

Mommy!! Dolly hit me back!!

This is another example of the left wing mindset. It is ok to use a boycott against someone that liberals define as BAD like Arizona, but it is terrible to use a boycott against someone who the liberals define as GOOD like California. Hypocrisy is the calling card of the left wing these days.

All in all I have to say that it looks like AZ is getting better and better. Open or concealed carry without a permit, the illegal alien law, requiring a birth certificate to be on a Presidential ballot, and now reaffirming that AMERICAN businesses have no duty to provide interpreters for would-be customers who can't speak English.

I'm going to buy something from a business in AZ just to show my support. I think I'll eat a bag of Doritos while I open the package when it arrives.

Here is your link. Unfortunately, there isn't a transcript of the video at that link.

My favorite part is where the President says that people should listen to opposing points of view. I guess that doesn't apply to left wing Presidents when they want to force socialized medicine on us.

In case you have a low speed connection I give you the basic outline. The federal government would like to force "political" websites to have links to opposing points of view. While this loonytune mentions CNN, do you really think left-wing-media sites would be considered "political"?

I don't want the federal government putting it's nasty hands on anything. Especially on the internet, even though Al Gore invented it.

The federal government wants to compare the United States with China on human rights. Maybe they decided that if they are going to do that then they should start creating a more oppressive atmosphere here in the USA.

On the plus side I have no doubt that if this happens then there will soon be filters available to block that sort of stuff. Until the government gets around to banning such filters.

I don't eat chips of any sort very often. Salt and fat are big reasons not to.

However, a bunch of illegal alien supporters is enough to get me to buy some. The illegal alien supporters want people to boycott Frito Lay because Frito Lay is a sponsor of something called "The Tositos Fiesta Bowl". Apparently, their problem with this is that it is held in Arizona.

I'm not sure what "The Tositos Fiesta Bowl" is and I don't want to spend the time to look it up, but if illegal aliens are upset about Frito Lay sponsoring it just because it is held in Arizona, then I'll have to buy some Fritos. Actually, I prefer Doritos and Sun Chips, but I think that's ok.

Go Arizona!! I wish we would follow that lead, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Monday, May 17, 2010

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session and as a troubling trend in our society, and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination. And these are issues very much being debated in our own society,” Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner, who led the US delegation to the talks, told reporters on Friday.

Even if the lies about the AZ law being about racial discrimination were true I find it difficult to compare that with almost anything China does.

Maybe Michael Posner should pack up and move to China and see how he likes it. Hey Mikey, if you do go, make sure you don't go in as an illegal immigrant. You might find out what serious human rights violations are like.

"Since day one, the administration has engaged in an all-hands-on-deck response to this event—and DHS has played a significant role," Ms. Napolitano said in testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. "We planned for a worst-case scenario from the moment the explosion occurred and now, almost four weeks later, we are continuing to sustain a strong and effective response."

LOL. I didn't know that white water rafting was part of "a strong and effective response" to this sort of thing. I guess this is some new meaning of "strong and effective" that this administration has just invented. If the United States Constitution can mean anything that lefties want it to mean then I guess the rest of the English language isn't safe, either.

Really, what do I expect the federal government to do? Nothing. Scratch that. I expect them to levy huge fines against everyone involved in an effort to make the deficit look smaller. Other than using this opportunity to raise a little revenue I don't expect the federal government to do anything.

I'm just pointing out how silly the administration looks trying to claim it has been doing great and wonderful things.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Arizona passes a law requiring any Presidential candidate to present a birth certificate before they can appear on the ballot. Hawaii passes a law so that the state government can ignore requests for President Obama's birth certificate.

A bill introduced this month in Congress would put the federal and state governments in the business of tracking how fat, or skinny, American children are.

Great. I realize that there are a lot of kids in America who are overweight and out of shape. Some of them are so bad they are gross. I guess the technical term might be "morbidly obese".

However, does anyone REALLY think this is the government's business? I guess in the age of socialized medicine everyone's lifestyle is everyone else's business. Except for promiscuous behavior of course. Women can sleep around all they want and the only thing men can do is pay for the abortions. Don't even think about what homosexuals do in public parks and restrooms.

Sorry if anyone lost their breakfast over that, I'm just pointing out that while everyone's lifestyle is everyone's business when we are all forced to pay for socialized medicine, some lifestyle choices are not everyone's business. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. I'll try to get back on track now. Assuming that keeping track of how obese other people's children are is everyone's business, does anyone REALLY think the government can handle that job? REALLY!?

Are you kidding me? Just look at the wonderful way the government handles just about anything, from paving and maintaining roads to providing "security" at the airport to securing the borders.

From the article:

States receiving federal grants provided for in the bill would be required to annually track the Body Mass Index of all children ages 2 through 18. The grant-receiving states would be required to mandate that all health care providers in the state determine the Body Mass Index of all their patients in the 2-to-18 age bracket and then report that information to the state government. The state government, in turn, would be required to report the information to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for analysis.

I guess it was a false alarm. You see, the federal government isn't forcing anyone to keep a database of how fat the children are. The federal government will just refuse to return tax money to states that don't do it. Don't you feel less oppressed now?

Want to guess who proposed this nonsense? It was Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.). A democrat. No kidding. Who could have guessed?

More:

The Healthy Choices Act--introduced by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee--would establish and fund a wide range of programs and regulations aimed at reducing obesity rates by such means as putting nutritional labels on the front of food products, subsidizing businesses that provide fresh fruits and vegetables, and collecting BMI measurements of patients and counseling those that are overweight or obese.

I've got some better ideas. How about parents don't buy junk food for their kids? How about parents save their money instead of buying computer games for their kids or restrict how much time the kid is allowed to play on the computer or sit in front of the tv? How about parents get off their obese behinds and take the kids out and play with them outside or go for a walk?

Do you notice something about the programs Rep. Ron Kind (Socialist-Wis.) wants? They all want to take money from you and give it to someone else.

I wonder how much various fruit and vegetable growers contribute to Kind's campaign?

My guess is that the next step, after collecting a database of obese kids, would be to raise taxes on people with obese kids, to pay for their higher healthcare costs. Maybe even make it so that obese people aren't allowed in the socialized medicine program.

Here is another bit that will make you feel better about the government running your healthcare:

"The provision relates to all children in states that accept grants under the bill," a spokesperson for Rep. Kind told CNSNews.com. "However, it is important to note that no one is forced to come in for a doctor’s visit to get their BMI tested. BMI will be taken at times when the child makes an otherwise scheduled doctor’s visit."

See? You don't have to participate. Unless you go to the doctor.

Now let's get back to the important business of the federal government spending your money on something you don't want:

To pay for implementing BMI data gathering, Sec. 102 of the bill states that the federal government will give grants to states that meet certain criteria, including having “the capacity to store basic demographic information (including date of birth, gender and geographic area of residence), height, weight, and immunization data for each resident of the state.” The grants also will pay for personnel and equipment necessary to measure patients’ BMI.

More government employees. That's what this nation really needs. Make sure they are all members of the SEIU while you're at it.

And to ensure your privacy:

Rep. Kinder's spokesperson said that any data used to generate a report on the BMI data collected would not include patients’ names.

A congressman actually said that. I'll bet he would assure you that your SSN will never be used as an ID number, too.

Now for a laugh:

At a press conference last week to announce the introduction of the bill, Kind emphasized it would help “busy American families.” “Making the healthy choice the easy choice for our families is essential to ensuring our quality of life,” Kind said. “I am pleased to work on legislation that helps provide the opportunities that meet the needs of busy American families.”

LOL. Helping "busy American families"!? Helping us out of our money for sure.

I have a different view of life and how things work. I agree that the government stands in the way of people achieving their dreams, but I believe it is because the government is trying to move towards socialism, not because the government is trying to move away from socialism.

This pathetic creature believes that only with the force of government being used to take property from others and giving it to her can she attain her dreams.

She believes that she is helpless and cannot do anything to improve her own future or make her way in the world. I don't know how people with that attitude continue to live.

That is a sorry attitude. I hope her parents are embarrassed by the results of the poor job they have done raising her.The attitude that "The government must provide for me. I can't provide for myself because (insert your favorite excuse here, racism being a common one in the USA)" threatens this nation as much as it threatens Greece.

I've got news for you spoiled brats out there: The world doesn't owe you anything.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

With a name like Faisal Shahzad it's kind of difficult to claim this guy was a Bible thumper.

From the article:

More than a dozen people with American citizenship or residency, like Shahzad, have been accused in the past two years of supporting or carrying out terrorism attempts on U.S. soil, cases that illustrate the threat of violent extremism from within the U.S.

Among them are Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S.-born Army psychiatrist of Palestinian descent, charged with fatally shooting 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas; Najibullah Zazi, a Denver-area airport shuttle driver who pleaded guilty in February in a plot to bomb New York subways; and a Pennsylvania woman who authorities say became radicalized online as "Jihad Jane" and plotted to kill a Swedish artist whose work offended Muslims.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

"We avoided what we could have been a very deadly event," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.

That makes it sound like the government somehow had something to do with the bomb not going off. The lesson we need to take home from this is that the government cannot prevent this kind of thing. I thought everyone knew that, but it bears repeating.

Here is another where Napolitano declares it to be attempted terrorism.

What do you bet the federal government decides this was the work of a white, Christian milita group that attended TEA party rallies?

It certainly could not have been moslems. After all, islam is the ROP.

Keep your eyes open out there. This could happen anywhere. The bigger and denser the crowd the more likely it is to happen.